Skakel trial to test Sherman's reputation

David Hennessey

Published 10:07 pm, Sunday, April 14, 2013

Michael Skakel, right, walks into the Norwalk Superior Court in Norwalk, Conn. with his attorney, Michael Sherman, during his trial in 2002. Skakel's new lawyers will attempt to prove in a new trial in April 2013 that Sherman failed to properly defend Skakel in the murder trial. Photo/Helen Neafsey color.
Photo: GT

Michael Skakel, right, walks into the Norwalk Superior Court in...

Michael Skakel, right, walks into the Norwalk Superior Court in Norwalk, Conn. with his attorney, Michael Sherman, during his trial in 2002. Skakel's new lawyers will attempt to prove in a new trial in April 2013 that Sherman failed to properly defend Skakel in the murder trial. Photo/Helen Neafsey color.
Photo: KERRY SHERCK, ST

Attorney Mickey Sherman built his reputation on innovative legal maneuvers, high-profile clients and a healthy dose of charisma.

But this week, that reputation will come under fire.

On Tuesday, Michael Skakel will have his best chance at freedom since he began serving a 20-years-to-life sentence in 2002 for the murder of his neighbor Martha Moxley outside her home in the exclusive Belle Haven section of Greenwich on Oct. 30, 1975. Moxley was 15 when her body was found bludgeoned with a golf club. Skakel, 52, who also was 15 at the time, is the nephew of Robert F. Kennedy's widow, Ethel.

In state Superior Court in the Rockville section of Vernon -- 38 years and 99 miles away from the murder scene -- Skakel will attempt to prove this week that Sherman did not competently defend him in the blockbuster trial in 2002, landing him in MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution in Suffield.

Some attorneys and legal experts describe Sherman as a creative lawyer who made a name for himself by executing unorthodox and effective legal tactics, and said he was more than capable in defending Skakel.

Skakel and his current defense team are not so kind to Sherman, a Greenwich native. In court documents, Skakel's new team cites a slew of ways in which they believe Sherman was ineffective, including allegations that he failed to properly investigate the case, mishandled his closing arguments and neglected to challenge Skakel's coerced confessions at Elan School when he was still a teenager.

Proving these shortcomings in court over the next few days could set Skakel free. Failure would mean yet another setback for Skakel, and redemption for Sherman, who has stood firmly behind his defense.

"I understand it," Sherman said of the claims brought against him. "It's a motion that's made in a situation (like this)."

Sherman's reputation, however, has already been bruised by his own conviction on charges of failing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal taxes. His days of delivering one-liners as a suntanned talking head on cable television shows came to an end as he served a brief prison term.

Legal experts said ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not uncommon following convictions. Sherman, who confirmed last week that he will testify at the trial, has always contended that Skakel is innocent.

Sherman declined to comment further on the case.

Stamford attorney Lindy Urso, who has no involvement in the Skakel case, said Sherman "has always been innovative."

"He's a very strong speaker on his feet," Urso said. "He's got the kind of charisma you can't teach."

Two previous cases formed the bedrock of Sherman's reputation, Urso said.

Sherman stood out in the legal profession for hiring a member of a hung jury as a consultant in the second trial of an accused rapist in the 1980s. For the retrial, Sherman hired the juror to advise him on how jurors viewed the evidence.

State lawmakers outlawed the practice soon after.

Steven B. Duke, professor of law at Yale Law School, said he remembers reading about Sherman hiring the juror for retrial.

"I thought it was inappropriate although at the time apparently neither illegal nor unethical," he said. "I had never heard of an attorney doing that. I guess one would have to give him some credit for creativity on that one."

It wasn't the only time Sherman used unorthodox tactics.

In the 1990s, Sherman successfully defended a Stamford apartment custodian and Vietnam veteran charged with shooting a tenant's son using the defense that the man suffered post-traumatic stress disorder from his war experiences.

The gamble of putting veteran Roger Ligon on the stand paid off, as Ligon was acquitted by reason of mental disease or defect and spent 45 days in a mental health facility.

Bridgeport attorney Wayne Keeney said Sherman had built a solid reputation by the time Skakel was indicted.

"Of the possible attorneys you could have chosen in the Stamford area at the time, he was certainly in the top five," Keeney said of Sherman, whose practice was based in Stamford for several years. "Mickey had extensive experience and was certainly well-qualified for the job," he said. "I don't see any glaring flaw in what he did."

Skakel family members, who have been scathing in their criticism of Sherman, don't see it the same way. They have accused Sherman of failing to do his job and said he should have "peeled the onion back" on other suspects, such as Skakel tutor Ken Littleton and Adolph Hasbrouck and Burt Tinsley -- two men who Tony Bryant, Skakel's former classmate at Brunswick School, incriminated in an interview with an investigator. Bryant is a cousin of NBA superstar Kobe Bryant.

Court documents filed by Skakel's defense echo the Skakel family's criticisms. One of the most recent documents outlines 10 different categories in which Skakel believes Sherman failed as his attorney. At one point, the document claims Sherman failed at carrying out some of the most basic principles of the legal system.

Greenwich attorney Philip Russell said the Skakel trial would have been a challenge for any attorney.

"(Superior Court Judge) John Kavanewsky had not had a great many trials prior that had foreshadowed how liberal he would be (with) the prosecution and the presentation of their case and how conservative he would be with the defense," Russell said. "I don't think anyone anticipated what a difficult trial that was going to be."

Thomas McCabe, a Stratford attorney who has no connection to the case, said he doesn't put a lot of weight on Skakel's claims.

McCabe added that, almost 40 years after the crime and more than a decade after Skakel was convicted, he is interested to see whether the habeas trial changes the direction of the Michael Skakel saga -- a story that never seems to end.

"Maybe there was a witness that could have turned this case," McCabe said. "I don't know. I don't think anyone knows."